Friday round-up

Posted Fri, July 19th, 2013 11:14 am by Conor McEvily

Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the repercussions of two of this Term’s highest-profile decisions. First, in the wake of last month’s decision in United States v. Windsor, in which the Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for purposes of a host of federal laws, House Republican leaders have now declined to defend a similar federal law that has denied military or veterans’ benefits to legally married gay and lesbian service members. Lyle Denniston covered the story for this blog; BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner also has coverage.

And following last month’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used to determine which jurisdictions must comply with the Act’s preclearance requirement (established in Section 5), a three-judge federal district court has asked Texas and the federal government to file briefs on the question whether Section 3 of the Act, the so-called “bail in” provision, could be used to subject Texas to the preclearance requirement. Lyle Denniston reports for this blog. And now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens speaks out on the Court’s decision in Shelby County in his review of Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights act and the Transformation of American Democracy, a new book by Gary May, for The New York Review of Books: Stevens criticizes the Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, as “fail[ing] to explain why . . . members of the Supreme Court,” rather than Congress, should decide whether Section 5’s preclearance requirement is still justified. By contrast, Stevens describes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the case as “eloquent” and “sum[ming] up exactly why the VRA reauthorization should have been upheld.”

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to Representative F. James Sensenbrenner et al., who filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Shelby County v. Holder; the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.

If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.comso that we can consider it.

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under Section 1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state; rather, for Section 1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within Section 1610.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers The anti-retaliation provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Class v. United States A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal.

Murphy v. Smith In cases governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d), district courts must apply as much of a judgment in a federal civil rights suit as necessary, up to 25 percent, to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees.

Conference of February 23, 2018

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred when it held that a biology-based paternity statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith.

United States v. Jackson Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.